Thanks for the contemptuous dismissal, but I've been studying games for quite a while and can divorce
what I like from
what's actually good; I like bad games (I'll play EA's NHL travesties until the cows come home) and dislike good games (I can't get into Spelunky to save my life). The key here, and what you so defensively fail to realize, is that it's completely possible to figure out what's a technically decent
game independent of one's own tastes and the majority of commercial RPG Maker releases--Aveyond very, very much included--are
bad.
Seriously, go play the field. I have, because I'm making a JRPG, and I find the field lame as hell. Bad UX (how many menus must you click through to do anything? WHY?), mediocre assets (lots of art is expensive, but good art is manageable), and gameplay that is hindered by--wait for it--being in RPG Maker. RPG Maker in all its incarnations has limited ways to interact with the core mechanics. You can't rip out the worst parts of it. You can't fix it (and this is why the good ones, like To the Moon and Always Sometimes Monsters, treat it as a walk-around visual novel instead of an RPG engine). The ability to avoid these limitations is why EasyRPG may have a chance, but I tend to think the overwhelming sameyness of titles using a limited engine will keep them at very-niche status.
And female game developers are honestly not that rare anymore if you pay attention to the indie scene. Before my latest Twitter purge I probably followed around thirty out of a gamedev list of a hundred and thirty or so. It's cool.